Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Automatic Task Detection and Heterogeneous LLM Speculative Decoding

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TaskSpec automatically clusters prompts into tasks and routes each to its own LoRA-fine-tuned draft model, raising acceptance by 6-50% and speedup to 2.64x.

desk verdict TaskSpec is a sensible integration of known speculative-decoding tricks that genuinely improves draft acceptance, but its headline speedup is measured against autoregressive decoding, not vanilla speculative decoding, and the maxima are fitted to the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08600 v1 pith:I4S7SYUL submitted 2025-05-13 cs.CL

Danying Ge , Jianhua Gao , Qizhi Jiang , Yifei Feng , Weixing Ji This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords speculativedecodingheterogeneousdraftmodelstaskclusteringpromptclassificationLoRAfine-tuningLLMinferenceaccelerationMambaclassifierK-means
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TaskSpec claims that the accuracy-efficiency trade-off in speculative decoding can be shifted by specializing draft models to the tasks that actually arrive in a workload. The system collects user prompts and target-model outputs during vanilla speculative decoding, clusters them automatically into task groups, fine-tunes a separate LoRA draft model on each group, and uses a lightweight Mamba-based classifier to route each new prompt to the most suitable draft model. On four education-domain tasks with a 13B target and a 68M base draft, the paper reports draft acceptance rates 6 to 50 percentage points above vanilla speculative decoding and end-to-end speedups of $1.10\times$ to $2.64\times$, with the largest gain on logical reasoning. If the result holds across broader workloads, task-aware drafting offers a way to accelerate LLM serving without enlarging the draft model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the speculative decoding speedup identity $$\frac{1-\$alpha^{{\gamma+1}}$}{(1-\$\alpha$)(\gamma c + 1)},$$ where $\alpha$ is the acceptance rate of draft tokens, $c$ is the ratio of draft inference cost to target inference cost, and $\gamma$ is the number of tokens drafted per round. TaskSpec raises $\alpha$ without increasing $c$ by keeping the base draft model fixed and adding only low-rank LoRA adapters. The mechanism has three parts: K-means clustering on cleaned and embedded prompts defines the task split; task-specific fine-tuning of one draft-model adapter per cluster aligns each adapter with the target on that cluster; and the Mamba-based prompt classifier routes each incoming prompt to the adapter that should have the highest $\alpha$. The routing decision is the piece that makes heterogeneous draft models usable online, since the task label of a new prompt is generally unknown.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to run TaskSpec on a workload with more than four task categories or with prompts that shift in topic over time: if clustering accuracy falls or misrouted prompts go to mismatched draft models, the reported speedup window of $1.10\times$ to $2.64\times$ should narrow or disappear. A simpler diagnostic is to compare TaskSpec's acceptance rate with oracle-perfect routing on the same prompts; the gap equals the penalty caused by classifier error, and if that gap exceeds the gain from task specialization, the routing stage becomes net harmful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TaskSpec replaces a single general-purpose draft model with a set of task-specialized draft models. Input prompts are preprocessed, embedded, and clustered with K-means so that each cluster corresponds to a downstream task; the base draft model is then fine-tuned with LoRA on 8,192 prompt-response pairs per cluster. An online prompt classifier based on a Mamba sequence layer selects the matching draft model for each incoming prompt. On the paper's four-task testbed, average acceptance rates rise from 27%, 16%, 33%, and 32% in vanilla speculative decoding to 45%, 58%, 60%, and 60% for text generation, logical reasoning, translation, and question answering, and peak speedups over vanilla reach $1.47\times$, $2.64\times$, $1.76\times$, and $1.81\times$. The paper further reports that classifier-based routing beats random assignment by 23% in average accepted length, and that the heterogeneous draft model set outperforms a unary model trained on the pooled data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that K-means clustering over cleaned, embedded prompts produces task categories that remain stable over time and that the lightweight classifier routes every new prompt to the correct draft model; the paper tests this on four hand-picked education tasks with 90.25% clustering accuracy at K=4 and a 400-sample classifier evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TaskSpec's per-task LoRA adapters raise draft acceptance rates by 6 to 50 percentage points over vanilla speculative decoding across four tasks, the paper reports.
  • End-to-end speedups over vanilla reach $1.47\times$, $2.64\times$, $1.76\times$, and $1.81\times$ for text generation, logical reasoning, translation, and question answering.
  • The paper's ablation shows the heterogeneous model set beats a unary draft model trained on pooled data by up to 12 percentage points acceptance rate, $1.21\times$ speedup, and $1.23\times$ average accepted length.
  • The Mamba-based prompt classifier is small enough (13.49 MB, about 0.001 s per item) to be deployed online, according to the paper's architecture comparison.
  • Because task boundaries are discovered by clustering rather than labeled by humans, the pipeline can transfer to a new domain by collecting a new prompt stream and re-running the same steps, per the paper's design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension is to apply TaskSpec to a workload with more than four tasks: the unsupervised clustering step should produce as many draft adapters as clusters, and the per-task acceptance gains should persist only if the classifier keeps routing accuracy high.
  • The method implicitly assumes workload heterogeneity: on a stream dominated by a single task, a single fine-tuned draft model should match TaskSpec, so the expected speedup over vanilla would come mostly from task-specific fine-tuning rather than from routing.
  • Because the classifier is trained on prompts from the same distribution as the clustered data, distributional drift or adversarial rephrasing would degrade routing; a natural robustness check is to measure acceptance rate on rewritten or out-of-domain prompts without retraining.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TaskSpec, a speculative decoding method that automatically partitions collected user prompts into task clusters, fine-tunes a separate LoRA-adapted draft model per cluster, and routes new prompts to the appropriate draft model with a lightweight Mamba-based classifier. Experiments with LLaMA-2-13B as the target and LLaMA-68M as the base draft model cover four education-domain tasks (Chinese text generation, math reasoning, English translation, chemistry QA). The paper claims 6% to 50% improvement in draft acceptance rate over vanilla speculative decoding and a 1.10x to 2.64x inference speedup, with ablations on the clustering, the unary versus heterogeneous draft models, and the classifier architecture.

Significance. If the claims held, TaskSpec would be a useful, largely automated recipe for improving speculative decoding on mixed task workloads, with the attractive property that only the base draft model is fine-tuned per task. The paper's strengths are its clear pipeline, the ablation against a unary draft model, and the explicit comparison of router architectures. However, the evidence as reported is narrower than the claims: only four hand-picked tasks are used, the number of clusters K is fixed to the known task count, decoding is greedy with batch size 1, and no code or models are released. The central efficiency result is further undermined by a baseline mismatch and by test-set-based selection of the lookahead and fine-tuning size. With corrected measurements and held-out validation, the approach could be a meaningful contribution, but the current manuscript does not substantiate the headline speedup numbers.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1; §3.2.2; Figure 10; Conclusion] The headline speedup figures are measured against the wrong baseline. The evaluation metric in §3.1 defines "Walltime speedup" as "the actual test speedup relative to Autoregressive decoding," and Figure 10's caption likewise says "over the LLM autoregressive decoding." Yet the Abstract, the third contribution bullet, and the Conclusion claim speedups "over the vanilla speculative decoding" or "over the original speculative decoding." Because vanilla speculative decoding already exceeds 1x speedup at the same gamma values, the TaskSpec-vs-vanilla speedup is the ratio of the two curves (or lower if classifier overhead is included), not the reported 1.10x-2.64x. The authors should either state that the speedups are relative to autoregressive decoding only, or re-measure against vanilla speculative decoding and revise the abstract, contributions, and conclusion accordingly.
  2. [§3.2; Figures 7-10] The main efficiency result is selected on the test set. The text reports TaskSpec's performance "at the gamma that achieved the best performance for each type of tasks" (gamma = 7, 10, 10, 9), and it chooses the fine-tuning dataset size of 8,192 from the test-set curve in Figure 7. Selecting both the lookahead window and the fine-tuning dataset size from the evaluation data makes the reported maxima fitted statistics rather than predictions. A held-out validation split, or a configuration fixed before evaluation, is needed before the 1.10x-2.64x claim can be accepted as a reliable performance statement.
  3. [§3.3.1] The clustering evaluation is partly circular. The K-means clusters are scored against the same pre-defined task labels used to construct the four experimental datasets, and K is set to the known number of tasks; high "clustering accuracy" (99%, 98%, 90.25%) is therefore partly by construction. The paper does not demonstrate cluster stability over time, sensitivity to K, or behavior when the number of tasks is unknown, which is exactly the regime that the "automatic task partitioning" claim targets. Please add an evaluation of discovered clusters on held-out prompts from unseen tasks, or a stability analysis over K and over data collection periods.
  4. [§3.3.3; Table 2] The prompt classifier, which is load-bearing for routing, is validated on only 400 test samples (99.50% accuracy), and the routing comparison uses random assignment on 1,000 samples per task with no error bars or statistical test. It is also not stated whether classifier latency is included in the wall-time speedups of §3.2.2. Because a misrouted prompt can erase the benefit of the task-specialized draft models, the routing evidence should be strengthened: a larger test set, a measurement of the end-to-end cost of misrouting, and an explicit statement of whether classifier overhead is in the reported latency.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2.1] The claim of "6% to 50%" improvement in draft accuracy is ambiguous: it is not clear whether these are percentage-point differences or relative percentages. Please report absolute acceptance-rate differences together with baseline values and, ideally, confidence intervals.
  2. [§3.1; Figures 7-10] All experiments are said to be repeated three times and averaged, but no standard deviations or significance tests are reported anywhere. Adding error bars would substantially strengthen the comparison between Vanilla SpecDec and TaskSpec.
  3. [§4.1] The related-work section contains an incomplete citation: "The work in suggests replacing draft tokens with n-gram generated by the target model" has no reference. Also, references [19] and [20] are duplicates; one should be removed.
  4. [§3.3.3; Table 2] The classifier inference times in Table 2 (0.54 s vs 354.42 s) are reported without a measurement protocol. Please state the batch size, hardware, and whether the time is for the full test set or per item, since the text cites both a total and a per-item figure.
  5. [§2.2] It is unclear whether the clustering uses the input text, the output text, or the concatenation of the collected input-output pairs. The description says the dataset contains <input, output> pairs, but the preprocessing and vectorization steps are described only as "text." Please clarify what is embedded.
  6. [§3.1] The verification scheme is described as the "non-deterministic verification proposed by Google [27]." Please specify the exact verification and correction rule, since reproducibility depends on whether random correction or strict rejection is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical measurements, not derivations from their own outputs.

full rationale

TaskSpec is an empirical systems paper. The draft-model acceptance rates (Fig. 8), average acceptance lengths (Fig. 9), and speedups (Fig. 10) are measured against independent baselines (Vanilla SpecDec, REST, Unary) on held-out test data. The clustering step in Sec. 3.3.1 is validated against pre-defined task labels (99%/98%/90.25% accuracy), so the automatic-partitioning claim is externally checked rather than defined by the clustering itself. The prompt classifier in Sec. 3.3.3 is trained on 1,026,401 prompt-label pairs and tested on 400 samples; its 99.50% accuracy reports its ability to reproduce the cluster/task assignments, and the end-to-end benefit is measured by comparing classifier routing against random routing, which is not circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Two non-circular validity concerns should be noted: (1) the contribution bullet claims speedups 'over the vanilla speculative decoding' while Sec. 3.2.2 and Fig. 10 define speedups 'over the original autoregressive decoding'; the 2.64x figure is thus not an improvement over Vanilla SpecDec as labeled, and (2) the reported maxima are selected at per-task gamma values (7,10,10,9) chosen from the test-set curves, which is post-hoc selection rather than a pre-registered configuration. These are correctness/statistical-reporting issues, not cases where the result reduces to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on assumptions about clustering stability, classifier accuracy, and the transfer of task-specific fine-tuning; none of these are derived, and the key hyperparameters (K, dataset size, gamma) are selected against the test set. The paper introduces no new theoretical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of task clusters K = 4 (also tested 2 and 3)
    The experimenter pre-selects four tasks from the education domain and evaluates clustering accuracy against them; K is not derived automatically.
  • Fine-tuning dataset size per task = 8,192 prompt-response pairs
    Chosen by looking at the test-set average acceptance length curve (Figure 7), which is a test-set selection.
  • Lookahead window gamma per task = 7 (text generation), 10 (logical reasoning), 10 (translation), 9 (question answering)
    The paper explicitly reports results 'at the gamma that achieved the best performance' on the test set for each task.
  • LoRA hyperparameters = Not reported
    Rank, alpha, learning rate, and epochs are not given, so the fine-tuning procedure cannot be reproduced or audited.
  • Prompt classifier hyperparameters = Not reported
    Embedding dimension, Mamba layer size, and training settings are omitted; only the architecture family is named.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The speculative decoding speedup formula (1-alpha^(gamma+1))/((1-alpha)(gamma c + 1)) from Leviathan et al. [27] is taken as a given.
    The paper uses this formula to motivate the balance between draft accuracy and cost, but does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning a small draft model on task-specific data improves its token acceptance rate with the target model without adding inference overhead.
    This is the core empirical assumption; the experiments test it only for LLaMA-68M on four tasks.
  • domain assumption K-means on MiniLM embeddings of cleaned prompts yields stable task clusters that match future query distributions.
    The paper validates clustering against the four hand-picked task labels, achieving 90.25% accuracy at K=4, and assumes this transfers.
  • domain assumption The lightweight prompt classifier's 99.5% accuracy on a 400-sample test set suffices to route prompts without materially degrading the speedup.
    No end-to-end sensitivity analysis of routing errors is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automatic Task Detection and Heterogeneous LLM Speculative Decoding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4S7SYUL

@misc{pith2026250508600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automatic Task Detection and Heterogeneous LLM Speculative Decoding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4S7SYUL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08600}
}
read the original abstract

Speculative decoding, which combines a draft model with a target model, has emerged as an effective approach to accelerate large language model (LLM) inference. However, existing methods often face a trade-off between the acceptance rate and decoding speed in downstream tasks due to the limited capacity of the draft model, making it difficult to ensure efficiency across diverse tasks. To address this problem, we propose a speculative decoding algorithm tailored for downstream task optimization. It includes an automatic task partitioning and assigning method, which automatically categorizes downstream tasks into different sub-tasks and assigns them to a set of heterogeneous draft models. Each draft model is aligned with the target model using task-specific data, thereby enhancing the consistency of inference results. In addition, our proposed method incorporates an online lightweight prompt classifier to dynamically route prompts to the appropriate draft model. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method improves draft accuracy by 6% to 50% over vanilla speculative decoding, while achieving a speedup of 1.10x to 2.64x in LLM inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of speculative decoding. (a) Autoregres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The word "reaction" tends to co-occur with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overview of TaskSpec. Firstly, TaskSpec performs vanilla speculative decoding on the user inputs. After a period of continuous collection of user inputs and speculative decoding outputs, we construct a collected dataset. We then conduct clustering analysis on this dataset, partitioning it into multiple clustered datasets, each corresponding to a down￾stream task with similar semantic features or application scen… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Construction of heterogeneous draft models for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Offline construction and online decision-making [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The impact of fine-tuning dataset size on the av [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average acceptance length of Vanilla SpecDec, REST [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Speedups of Vanilla SpecDec and TaskSpec over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao

    Tianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng, Jason D. Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao. 2024. Medusa: Simple LLM Inference Acceleration Framework with Multiple Decoding Heads. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=PEpbUobfJv

    2024

  3. [3]

    Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Lau- rent Sifre, and John Jumper. 2023. Accelerating Large Language Model Decoding with Speculative Sampling. arXiv:2302.01318 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2302. 01318

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Jian Chen, Vashisth Tiwari, Ranajoy Sadhukhan, Zhuoming Chen, Jinyuan Shi, Ian En-Hsu Yen, and Beidi Chen. 2024. MagicDec: Breaking the Latency- Throughput Tradeoff for Long Context Generation with Speculative Decoding. CoRR abs/2408.11049 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2408.11049 arXiv:2408.11049

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.11049 2024

  5. [5]

    Zhuoming Chen, Avner May, Ruslan Svirschevski, Yuhsun Huang, Max Ryabinin, Zhihao Jia, and Beidi Chen. 2024. Sequoia: Scalable, Robust, and Hardware-aware Speculative Decoding. CoRR abs/2402.12374 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2402. 12374 arXiv:2402.12374

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402 2024

  6. [6]

    Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Hao Tian, Shenglong Ye, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Wenwen Tong, Kongzhi Hu, Jiapeng Luo, Zheng Ma, et al. 2024. How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites. Science China Information Sciences 67, 12 (2024), 220101

    2024

  7. [7]

    Ziyi Chen, Xiaocong Yang, Jiacheng Lin, Chenkai Sun, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, and Jie Huang. 2024. Cascade Speculative Drafting for Even Faster LLM Inference. arXiv:2312.11462 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11462

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Christopher, Brian R

    Jacob K. Christopher, Brian R. Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Ferdinando Fioretto. 2024. Speculative Diffusion Decoding: Accelerating Language Genera- tion through Diffusion. CoRR abs/2408.05636 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2408. 05636 arXiv:2408.05636

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Tri Dao and Albert Gu. 2024. Transformers are SSMs: Generalized Models and Efficient Algorithms Through Structured State Space Duality. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Cunxiao Du, Jing Jiang, Xu Yuanchen, Jiawei Wu, Sicheng Yu, Yongqi Li, Shenggui Li, Kai Xu, Liqiang Nie, Zhaopeng Tu, and Yang You. 2025. GLIDE with a CAPE: a Low-Hassle Method to Accelerate Speculative Decoding. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine L...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Mostafa Elhoushi, Akshat Shrivastava, Diana Liskovich, Basil Hosmer, Bram Wasti, Liangzhen Lai, Anas Mahmoud, Bilge Acun, Saurabh Agarwal, Ahmed Roman, Ahmed A Aly, Beidi Chen, and Carole-Jean Wu. 2024. LayerSkip: Enabling Early Exit Inference and Self-Speculative Decoding. In...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2025. Break the Sequential Dependency of LLM Inference using LOOKAHEAD DECODING. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Vienna, Austria) (ICML’24). JMLR.org, Article 561, 20 pages

    2025

  6. [14]

    Zhuocheng Gong, Jiahao Liu, Ziyue Wang, Pengfei Wu, Jingang Wang, Xunliang Cai, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2024. Graph-Structured Speculative Decoding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (Eds.)...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. 2023. Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Tianle Gu, Zeyang Zhou, Kexin Huang, Liang Dandan, Yixu Wang, Haiquan Zhao, Yuanqi Yao, Yujiu Yang, Yan Teng, Yu Qiao, et al . 2024. Mllmguard: A multi-dimensional safety evaluation suite for multimodal large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Conghui He, Zhenjiang Jin, Chao Xu, Jiantao Qiu, Bin Wang, Wei Li, Hang Yan, Jiaqi Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2023. WanJuan: A Comprehensive Multimodal Dataset for Advancing English and Chinese Large Models. arXiv:2308.10755 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10755

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Conghui He, Wei Li, Zhenjiang Jin, Chao Xu, Bin Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2024. OpenDataLab: Empowering General Artificial Intelligence with Open Datasets. arXiv:2407.13773 [cs.DL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13773

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zhenyu He, Zexuan Zhong, Tianle Cai, Jason Lee, and Di He. 2024. REST: Retrieval-Based Speculative Decoding. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Zhenyu He, Zexuan Zhong, Tianle Cai, Jason D Lee, and Di He. 2023. Rest: Retrieval-based speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08252 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Coleman Hooper, Sehoon Kim, Hiva Mohammadzadeh, Hasan Genc, Kurt Keutzer, Amir Gholami, and Sophia Shao. 2024. SPEED: Speculative Pipelined Execution for Efficient Decoding. arXiv:2310.12072 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12072

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2106.09685 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kaixuan Huang, Xudong Guo, and Mengdi Wang. 2024. SpecDec++: Boosting Speculative Decoding via Adaptive Candidate Lengths. CoRR abs/2405.19715 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2405.19715 arXiv:2405.19715

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation 3, 1 (1991), 79–87

    1991

  17. [25]

    Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models. arXiv:2001.08361 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2001.08361

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer

    Sehoon Kim, Karttikeya Mangalam, Suhong Moon, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer. 2023. Speculative Decoding with Big Little Decoder. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast Inference from Transformers via Speculative Decoding. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (ICML’23). JMLR.org, Article 795, 13 pages

    2023

  20. [28]

    Chi-Heng Lin, Shikhar Tuli, James Seale Smith, Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, and Hongxia Jin. 2024. SLiM: Speculative Decoding with Hypothesis Reduction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, Mexico City, Mexico, June 16-21, 2024 , Kevin Duh, H...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fangcheng Liu, Yehui Tang, Zhenhua Liu, Yunsheng Ni, Kai Han, and Yunhe Wang

  22. [30]

    Xiaoxuan Liu, Lanxiang Hu, Peter Bailis, Alvin Cheung, Zhijie Deng, Ion Sto- ica, and Hao Zhang. 2025. Online Speculative Decoding. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Vienna, Austria) (ICML’24). JMLR.org, Article 1258, 16 pages

    2025

  23. [31]

    Jonathan Mamou, Oren Pereg, Daniel Korat, Moshe Berchansky, Nadav Timor, Moshe Wasserblat, and Roy Schwartz. 2024. Dynamic Speculation Lookahead Accelerates Speculative Decoding of Large Language Models. arXiv:2405.04304 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04304

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Zhengxin Zhang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Alan Zhu, Lijie Yang, Xiaoxiang Shi, Chunan Shi, Zhuoming Chen, Daiyaan Arfeen, Reyna Abhyankar, and Zhihao Jia

  25. [33]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operat- ing Systems, Volume 3 (ASPLOS ’24)

    SpecInfer: Accelerating Large Language Model Serving with Tree-based Speculative Inference and Verification. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operat- ing Systems, Volume 3 (ASPLOS ’24) . ACM, 932–9...

  27. [35]

    Ziteng Sun, Ananda Theertha Suresh, Jae Hun Ro, Ahmad Beirami, Himanshu Jain, and Felix Yu. 2024. SpecTr: Fast Speculative Decoding via Optimal Transport. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (NIPS ...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Benjamin Spector and Chris Re. 2023. Accelerating LLM Inference with Staged Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2308.04623 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04623

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sheng Wang, Liheng Chen, Jiyue Jiang, Boyang Xue, Lingpeng Kong, and Chuan Wu. 2024. LoRA Meets Dropout under a Unified Framework. arXiv:2403.00812 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00812

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucu- rull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy...

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Heming Xia, Zhe Yang, Qingxiu Dong, Peiyi Wang, Yongqi Li, Tao Ge, Tianyu Liu, Wenjie Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2024. Unlocking Efficiency in Large Lan- guage Model Inference: A Comprehensive Survey of Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2401.07851 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07851

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Siqi Wang, Hailong Yang, Xuezhu Wang, Tongxuan Liu, Pengbo Wang, Xuning Liang, Kejie Ma, Tianyu Feng, Xin You, Yongjun Bao, Yi Liu, Zhongzhi Luan, and Depei Qian. 2024. Minions: Accelerating Large Language Model Inference with Adaptive and Collective Speculative Decoding. CoRR...

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Nan Yang, Tao Ge, Liang Wang, Binxing Jiao, Daxin Jiang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2023. Inference with Reference: Lossless Acceleration of Large Language Models. arXiv:2304.04487 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304. 04487

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bin Xiao, Chunan Shi, Xiaonan Nie, Fan Yang, Xiangwei Deng, Lei Su, Weipeng Chen, and Bin Cui. 2024. Clover: Regressive Lightweight Speculative Decoding with Sequential Knowledge. CoRR abs/2405.00263 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2405.00263 arXiv:2405.00263

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aonan Zhang, Chong Wang, Yi Wang, Xuanyu Zhang, and Yunfei Cheng. 2024. Recurrent Drafter for Fast Speculative Decoding in Large Language Models.CoRR abs/2403.09919 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2403.09919 arXiv:2403.09919

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Xiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, Neil Houlsby, and Lucas Beyer. 2022. Scaling Vision Transformers. arXiv:2106.04560 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.04560

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2024. Draft& Verify: Lossless Large Language Model Acceleration via Self-Speculative Decoding. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume ...

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Di Zhang, Wei Liu, Qian Tan, Jingdan Chen, Hang Yan, Yuliang Yan, Jiatong Li, Weiran Huang, Xiangyu Yue, Wanli Ouyang, Dongzhan Zhou, Shufei Zhang, Mao Su, Han-Sen Zhong, and Yuqiang Li. 2024. ChemLLM: A Chemical Large Language Model. arXiv:2402.06852 [cs.AI]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Yongchao Zhou, Kaifeng Lyu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Af- shin Rostamizadeh, Sanjiv Kumar, Jean-François Kagy, and Rishabh Agarwal

  40. [49]

    arXiv:2310.08461 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08461

    DistillSpec: Improving Speculative Decoding via Knowledge Distillation. arXiv:2310.08461 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08461

    arXiv

  41. [2024]

    CoRR abs/2404.18911 (2024)

    Kangaroo: Lossless Self-Speculative Decoding via Double Early Exiting. CoRR abs/2404.18911 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2404.18911 arXiv:2404.18911

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.